I have not bothered following closely the tedious story of the Mueller enquiry into Donald Trump's supposed collusion with Russia in the 2016 election. It was clear from the get-go the that there was nothing in the allegation. It then became clear that Robert Mueller was going round the houses trying to find anything, however tangential, that might be useful against anyone somehow associated with Donald Trump. I presume he wanted to indict people in the hope that they would give juicy information against him in plea bargaining.
At least Mueller did manage to pay for his enquiry twice over, by uncovering tax evasion, but he should not have taken so long.
Finally all is concluded and although the report has not been published no further indictments will take place. In other words, there is - surprise! - nothing in the idea that Trump and Russia colluded and nor did the Attorney-general interfere with the enquiry.
Democrat TV show host Rachel Maddow was reduced to tears when reporting it, which is so funny. It was a reprise of her emotional breakdown in the 2016 election results.
Finally all is concluded and although the report has not been published no further indictments will take place. In other words, there is - surprise! - nothing in the idea that Trump and Russia colluded and nor did the Attorney-general interfere with the enquiry.
Democrat TV show host Rachel Maddow was reduced to tears when reporting it, which is so funny. It was a reprise of her emotional breakdown in the 2016 election results.
But I am angry because I just read a long article by Ben Riley-Smith in a conservative British paper, the Daily Telegraph, that contrives to give inattentive readers, and few readers are very attentive, the idea that the investigation did inculpate the president.
This is exactly what I consider fake news.
I feel foolish remembering how I fell for the stuff left-wingers said, back in the 1980s. The things conservatives say make obvious sense but seem to young clever people unintelligent and narrow-minded. And because the things the left say do not make sense at first sight one thinks they must be profound. So they credit the left with bigger brains and bigger hearts, but it is not really so.
Accusing the right of being primitive, unsophisticated, unkind and ungenerous is just the left's spiel, their sales pitch.
The right have their spiel too, of course, (dis)crediting the left with a list of vices. The poet, Philip Larkin, who was very right-wing indeed and backed neither side in the Second World War (unlike his father who wanted Germany to win) recited the conservative spiel when he said:
Accusing the right of being primitive, unsophisticated, unkind and ungenerous is just the left's spiel, their sales pitch.
The right have their spiel too, of course, (dis)crediting the left with a list of vices. The poet, Philip Larkin, who was very right-wing indeed and backed neither side in the Second World War (unlike his father who wanted Germany to win) recited the conservative spiel when he said:
"I’ve always been right-wing... I suppose I identify the Right with certain virtues and the Left with certain vices. All very unfair, no doubt. Thrift, hard work, reverence, desire to preserve - those are the virtues, in case you’re wondering; and on the other hand idleness, greed and treason."
Paul, are you paid for writing such piffle?
ReplyDeleteRachel M in tears that made me laugh but I am angry about the stupidity of people who think Trump won by colluding with Putin. I know the conservatives were the stupid party in JS Mill's day but liberals can be very stupid when emotion clouds their brains. I suppose everyone can but liberals more so than conservatives. This is why they let Mr Trump trigger them.
DeleteIt's all what you Americans call a great big nothingburger born from the idea that Americans just could not have elected Trump as POTUS - and occult forces must have done so. Children think like this but not intelligent children.
ReplyDelete